Land of the Lowrising Sun

Recommended Posts

I've had this idea for a while now and maybe it doesn't deserve its own thread but whatever. I've been wanting to field some opinions about something I've noticed with a lot of the Japanese brands talked about on this forum.

As a western man with a waist of 31 inches I've found that a front rise lower than 11.5" is a no-go for me. I'm really only looking for my jeans to give the impression of a vintage 501 and not only is the lower rise found on certain models uncomfortable but I feel like it throws off the look of the jeans. This gets to the topic at hand; are these lower rise Japanese models simply tailored to fit a Japanese body type and we're trying to squeeze our lanky westerner bodies into them?

What differences in patterning have you guys noticed? thoughts? Models you like / models you've had issues with.

Me personally I've found the TCB 50s to work well for me/westerners. The sugar cane 1947 although well made with very interesting fabric and details fits frumpily on me and I actually don't think I've ever seen a picture of someone wearing a pair that didn't look frumpy to some degree.

very interesting topic. I have somewhat of the completely opposite problem, many jeans that fit great other people don't work for me beacause of my thick (!) gut.

I also find that is mainly a matter of getting used to. I thought for a while that the SC47 fit couldn't work for me but after wearing the TCB 20s for a couple months now I'm getting used to the higher rise of the 47 fit as well and really love it.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

My SC1947 also fit me similarly to Volvo , but it all depends on one's body type. It's important to not get the SC1947 confused with the other "47" models like the 2009 and 2014, which are slimmer with a lower rise, but wider in the waist. I couldn't get those to work for my body type, for example.

A lot of Japanese guys seem to prefer jeans that are lower rise and wide, so a lot of brands make jeans that way, but there are exceptions. I sized incorrectly, but the FW 1947 was overall a perfect cut to me with a rise that was neither too high nor too low, and a non-frumpy silhouette.

I'm 5'11.25", 34 waist. I prefer front rise around 11"-11.5". I can deal with 10.75" to 11.75" if I like the rest of the cut enough, but lower or higher than that is too uncomfortable. I've had SDA D1677 with a 10" front rise. While the top block was comfortable width wise, my boys just couldn't get along with them. I also had a pair of SG 5105 with a front rise of 9". YIKES! They were absurdly low and tight (but they were 2 sizes too small). IH 1955-UHR had a FR of 12.25" and looked like MC Hammer pants on me (they were 1 size too big, but still the FR was too tall for me).

What I find very important, and not sure how other fellas feel about this, is the proportion of FR to BR. I find 3.5"-4"+/- to be ideal. If there's more than 4.25" difference, the back rise feels too high and leads to diaper butt. If there's less than 3.25" then it seems like they're falling off my arse.

In addition to rise, I find the height of the fly makes difference, when opening the fly is necessary. I've had pairs with low rise and a tall fly that went almost all the way down to the crotch seam (SDA), and tall rise with short fly that doesn't seem to allow the jeans to open up wide enough when taking on and off. I prefer a 4-button fly + the waist band button over a 3-button fly, but I guess the number of buttons makes little to no difference.

Edited February 9, 2018 by mpukas

3

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

i cant do low rises either. At the same time, I share Volvo's sentiment about the gut. Over the past 1.5 years I have gained 25 pounds and am having a hell of time dropping any of it. I am not really exercising and I drink too much red wine so I cant really say I have been trying but regardless having a gut and a 12"+ front rise is almost as bad as a ball busting 10.5" rise. One problem I am having as of late with the TCB 20's is that when I am standing up I am constantly having to pull them up but when I sit it hits right where my stomach fat rolls up and chokes me haha.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It's a fascinating topic. After doing some work for Levi's I had a pair of Lot One made for me. We tried on three different rises, what they called high, medium and low. I wanted a 60s carrot-shaped vibe, so wanted a high rise. yet looking in the mirror, the medium looked better, so I went for that. Long story short, I really don't like the feel. Higher rise would have been better What rise works seems to vary so much with what else you're wearing, whether they're a bit more worn and softer, therefore riding lower.

I think Roy is probably the one person that seems to get that higher rise perfect. Haven't measured it but my current pair feel higher than TCB50s, and distinctly higher than SDA103, Full Count, etc etc etc, and look much better for it.

But yes, that original high rise is so distinctive. When you watch Jack Nicholson in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, you see those jeans are distinctly longer in the top block, it's a really distinctive look and I don't think many repros quite capture that. Sadly there aren't any stills that quite capture the look.

I'm a slim, 5' 9" and prefer mid-rise cuts, I've tried Resolute 710's and they're just too small in the hip, I can't size up on them or they'd fall down, orslow is another brand with 'off' sizing, I've found Evisu (2000) and Warehouse (1105, EW0110) complimentary to my western frame so far.

Edited February 9, 2018 by bod

0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

My Dawson Denim jeans have the longest rise by far, and are the only pair that really sits on my true waist (above my hip bones.) As someone tall and thin, I run into struggles with rise a lot. Some pairs, like my 3Sixteen ST-120x, have a good amount of rise but I end up wearing them at/below my hip bones because the waist is a lot looser than my true waist. Others like my Samurai S710xx don't get worn much anymore at least in part because I find the rise uncomfortable.

When I'm wearing short sleeves I'm fine with lower rise like on my 3Sixteen STs. With long sleeves (or especially tucked in), I appreciate a more generous rise.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Cold Summer

2

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I'm in the same boat. Lanky and on the tall side. Most Japanese brands don't fit my frame, but there are a few exceptions: Warehouse's chambray shirts have really long sleeves in smaller sizes and the my Lot 700 (unfortunately I sized too small) had good proportions too. Porky's 66 jeans fits me really well, despite a lower rise. My absolute favorite for high-rise jeans so far: LVC 1947

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I have to say this is a great topic. Having struggled with rise issues for over a decade into denim. So glad you made this topic

for me this brings up two issues. Rise in general for those of us on the tall and thin side. For those with this body type it’s hard to get a longer rise without looking frumpmy. In other words need the rise of repro but the effect is not flattering.

The SC 47 being the perfect example. I don’t know how to describe it except with that cut there was no way to avoid looking like a grandpa.

So for the sake of helping others I would say I’ve had decent success with lVc, Luther’s 55s and Roy’s . Left field greasers are also good but you better have a bit of beef in the thighs

the second issue is relate Ltd but for me the grail of a higher rise with a more modern look and cut

NOT A LIFTERS CUT

Havent found it yet although the newer freenote portola are close

I may try the left field Chelsea’s next and from what I can tell some of the full counts models might work

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

very interesting topic. I have somewhat of the completely opposite problem, many jeans that fit great other people don't work for me beacause of my thick (!) gut.

I also find that is mainly a matter of getting used to. I thought for a while that the SC47 fit couldn't work for me but after wearing the TCB 20s for a couple months now I'm getting used to the higher rise of the 47 fit as well and really love it.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I think 3Sixteen's CT cut could be a good choice for tall/thin guys. Based on the measurements going down to a 29 in this pair seems like it'd be a nice slim fit with a long rise. Haven't personally tried it yet, though it's probably next on my list.

0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The Mickey Spillane pic is exactly the look of 50s Levi's that it seems hard to replicate. Obviously some of it is his build but that generous top block, without baggy thighs, is a timeless look. Perfect length, too.

Forgot to add what would be perfect for me is the iron heart 633 with a rouch longer front rise and and inch or two rear

yes I know they make an 888 but the thighs on those are similar to the 634 which imho are a bit wide for the lanky

both the 633 and 888 are base on the 634. The 633 has more taper knee to hem, but the thighs, top block and rise should be similar. Of course each lot will have variations, and SE may tweak the measurements from one lot to another. There're noticeable variances between different runs. The 888 has a higher rise, more room in the top block, and more taper form knee to hem. The 888S came out with thighs slightly smaller than the 634S, and Giles decided to stay with it since it sold so well. The 888-NT/UHR is closer to original concept, and the thighs the same as the 634S. That run was limited to the amount of denim they had available, and will not be reproduced. Giles has stated that future runs of the 888 will have the slimmer thighs.

I think my Ande Whall Buffalos have a 12” FR and 16” BR on a size 31 (which is really a 32 I think) and that is perfect. For me, 11.5-12.5” FR is just right and I never buy jeans with less than 11.5 post-shrink. The Momo 0901s I’m currently wearing are about 11.75 for size 32.

call me crazy or lazy but I really don't care about exact measurements of front rise and back rise... all that matters to me is the rise is long enough to not give any gratuitous views when I reach for things. That said the TCB 50s probably have my favorite top block.

an elliot erwitt image dated from 1954 (lovely type I and II evident as well as soaring high rise on the left)

then some retro geez from an i-d magazine straight-up page in 1989, wearing 50s vintage is my presumption... (full page shot to give some context, then close up): not showing because of any 'classic great fit' claim: more thinking uk retro denim culture and jeans in circulation pre-osaka 5

Without owning a vintage counterpart of that era I can’t comment if Yoshiaki tweaked the fit or if the jeans really were cut like this.

I usually wear all jeans at roughly the same spot on my body, resulting in a nut-crushing fit, a saggy looking fit or a “perfect” fit if the waist is just right.
The only brand of high rise jeans I really wear higher on my body are the Conner’s. My Ooe and FC 1101 have a higher rise but they just don’t stay higher on my body (also with a belt) and just don’t feel right there.
I think ideal for me is a 11” front rise and 15.5-16” back rise.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

^ Refresh our memory b_F regarding which Conner's you like or wear most. I need another pair of jeans ;-)

I know exactly what you mean -- high rise jeans tend to fall to the same spot on our body. Nonetheless, I do find Ooe fit to be about perfect and the FC1101 is darn good too. This may be because I have 'cannonball ass', as my friends used to say in high school -- my hips aren't exactly trim. For me, the key measurements in the top block are the back rise and hips -- both need to be a touch generous. But the front rise can vary quite a bit and still be comfortable.